Libellés

dimanche 4 janvier 2015

16- Farming methods -2- Organic farming

Organic
farming is a movement born in the 30s, in industrialized countries, in contrast
with the evolution of agriculture to a productivist mode, considered as
excessive and contrary to the concept of Nature, foster mother.

The
origin of the movement is very philosophical, with ideologists like Steiner,
Fukuoka, Howard or Müller.

The
movement has evolved over the years to a rejection of synthetic chemistry and a
will of producing better quality food.

One
may doubt of the value of the names chosen (biologique in French, organic in English
or ecológica in Spanish), because they are pleonasms, to the extent that
agriculture is by definition and whatever the mode of farming, an activity
based on the cultivation and use of living animals or plants beings, in a rural
environment. These names were simply chosen as opposed to the word chemical.

In
its current acceptance, organic farming has lost much of its philosophical
connotations, but stays a movement based
on a denial of the use of chemicals in agriculture and food.

Among
the recent thinkers of organic farming, some have largely drifted to a
reactionary or unscientific conception (Teddy Goldsmith, for example) with the
use of themes such as the return to the land, the decay of society, or the end
of civilization, as a justification for the will to abandon all modern
techniques, whatever they are.

Today,
a farmer who wants to be organic farming, and market it as such (using one of
the labels of organic farming) must comply with the specifications and get
certified. Certifications have an annual value, and are renewed after a
specific audit.

Every
action performed on the farm is recorded. Non-conformities must be corrected
within a short time, except some of them, considered unacceptable, which may
lose accreditation.

The
distinctive labeling pays a fee, like for the use of most brands, whether
agricultural or not, organic or not. This is for example, also the case of
integrated farming, which I will soon speak about.

It
should be known that an unlabeled food is considered, default, produced by
conventional farming. This labeling wants to make the difference.

Whoever
does not want to pay the brand will have to settle prices for conventional
foods. Labeled organic products are sold more expensive, and the price
difference is more than the cost of the label.

The
concept of organic farming is difficult to conciliate with large size farms. In
fact, it incorporates an important social and rural structuration concept.

In
industrialized countries, where the movement has received the best welcome,
many organic farmers are neo-rural and ecologists, installed on small farms,
having made ​​a return to the land.

However,
large farms represent the most part of the world's certified production.
Organic farming, whose consumption of products is highly concentrated in
industrialized countries, has progressively become a very interesting potential
market, to which are oriented large agricultural companies looking for economically
growing markets and comfortable profit margins .

It
may also be indicated that consumers of organic products are primarily urban,
middle and upper, rather affluent classes. It is still, in terms of production
and consumption, an intellectual movement.

Technically
speaking, organic farming is little different from conventional farming. Cultivation
methods are quite similar, and productive objectives are generally productivist.
It’s to say that the organic farmer seeks to maximize production in compliance
with the obligations laid down in the specifications.

We
must be lucid, regardless of the mode of production, a farmer will always get a
much better income if he produces a lot than if he produces little. Once fixed
the quality he wants to offer to its customers, he logically seek to produce as
much as possible in accordance with his purpose. And the price paid to the
farmer has nothing to do with the price paid by the consumer. We'll talk about
it in another post. The farmer is condemned to produce much, even in organic
farming, to be able to live properly from his business.

We
can represent the principles used in some main lines. All techniques used are
designed to promote the following:

-Reduce
soil erosion and risks of loss of fertility.

-Maintenance
of soil is based on mechanical means.

-Water
use control

-Promote
biodiversity in the farm

-Promote
soil microbial life by burying the
remains of previous crops, feed the soil to feed the plant

-Fertilisation
based on materials of natural origin, such as manure, compost, bone powder or
fertilizer from mining without industrial processing

-Reduce
the impact of pests and diseases on crops

-Plant
Protection based on non-chemical methods and using natural products.

It
should be noted that these techniques are not exclusive to organic farming, as
we shall see later.

There
is a European regulation (Regulations No 834/2007, 889/2008 and 540/2011),
which sets a common European framework, but each member state is then free to
apply its own way. This regulation aims to establish a common minimum, but it
is still possible to tighten the rules at national level, not alleviate. Each
non-European country has its own legal interpretation of organic farming, which
can sometimes lead to significant differences in the actual application of the
concept by the farmer and the final quality of organic food.

One
of the most sensitive issues is the control of pest problems. On this point,
which is ultimately the most critical for public opinion, I want to make
several remarks.

First
important point:
there are many pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, because crops are
prone to pest damage in all growing methods.

It
should be added that the breeding and releases of beneficial insects (ladybugs,
hoverflies, predatory wasps, predatory bugs, predatory mites, etc.), represent
effective control techniques, although often difficult to master.

-The
microorganisms used in biological control against pests and diseases (bacteria,
viruses, fungi, nematodes)

-Substances
produced by microorganisms (case of spinosad, a toxin produced by a soil
bacterium)

-Synthetic
substances to be used in traps and/or dispensers (such as pheromones,
insecticides or pellets made ​​from synthetic pyrethroids)

-Preparations
to be surface-spread between cultivated plants (such as bait for slugs and
snails)

-Other
substances from traditional use in organic farming (such as copper, sulfur,
paraffin and mineral oils, usually from mining or petrochemical)

-Other
substances such as calcium hydroxide and potassium bicarbonate.

As
you can see, some substances are derived from synthetic chemistry,
petrochemical or mining, three activities widely criticized by environmental
groups and organic farming for the pollution risks they represent.

Second
important point:
the substances used in organic farming are not harmless. What is natural is not
necessarily good for your health, or the environment. We can cite :

-The
natural pyrethrum, polyvalent plant extract insecticide, is toxic for the
auxiliary insects and very toxic to aquatic wildlife fauna.

-Nicotine
is a natural insecticide extracted from tobacco, widely known for its danger to
human health and environment, not authorized in Europe, but widely used in many
non-European countries.

-Rotenone
and neem oil, other natural insecticides, also known for their danger to health
and environment.

-Copper,
widespread use fungicide, toxic metal, heavily polluting the soil and water,
and non-degradable, from mining production or recycling, and sometimes carrying
small amounts of other dangerous heavy metals such as mercury or lead.

Third
important point: the
persistence of products is generally much lower than synthetic products (except
copper). The main consequence of this point is that, to achieve the same level
of protection of his crops, an organic farmer is obliged to treat between 2 and
3 times more, depending on the problems to be solved, than a conventional
farmer. There are therefore more important environmental risks of residues in
food, usually not measured.

Fourth
important point,
the legislation. I have already given you an insight in previous posts. There
is a legislative problem concerning potential pesticide residues on organic
food. Indeed, except in some specific cases, the composition of the products is
not well known because plant extracts are often very complex.

For
example, neem oil contains a main ingredient, azadirachtin, whose effects and
residues are well known. But it also contains more than 100 others less
well-known active ingredients, which are never analyzed, and whose effects on
health and the environment are unknown.

The
manufacturer also has the possibility not to declare the complete composition,
because the legislation does not make it mandatory, so all their components can
not be analyzed or quantified.

Specifically,
nobody currently may guarantee that organic food contains, or no, hazardous residues
for health and in what quantity. However, as I have said in the previous point,
the risk of organic pesticide residues is important, due to the large number of
treatments needed.

Organic
food, just as conventional foods undergo pesticide residues controls, by
sampling at both customs and health services, as supermarkets. But seeks only
synthetic pesticides, never natural pesticides. This allows the detection of
fraud in respect of bio protocols, but not abuses of organic pesticides or potentially
risky natural residues.

One
of the technical problems that organic farming meets in managing pest problems,
is that auxiliary releases, potentially effective technique, have very random
results. Indeed, in many cases, if they don’t find sufficient food in the areas
of releases, auxiliary disappear. They just go looking for food, out of crops
to protect.

Their
short-term effectiveness is good, because the farmer will realize the releases
in case of presence of problems, but in the medium and long term, it is very
random. And the cost is high.

However,
there are conditions under which these techniques work very well, but they are
incompatible with the philosophy of organic farming (although they are
allowed). I mean greenhouses. Actually, thanks to greenhouses, it creates an
artificially confined environment, which allows, because of the physical
barrier effect, both a limitation of pests and a control of auxiliary
populations. It should however be noted that the absence of rain, wind, the high
humidity and the lack of biodiversity cause an aggravation of other problems.

There
are organic growers in greenhouses in many countries. However the question of
the use and management of plastic is only partially resolved.

On
the other hand, it presents a philosophical problem in creating an artificial
environment, with forced crops, and with all the energy and phytosanitary
constraints that it represents, as well as the obligation to use the
petrochemical industry for the supply of large quantities of plastic.

Another
special point is the fertilization. Are prefered fertilizers of natural origin,
from manure, compost, or by-products of the food industry, such as bone powders.
There are many sources of natural fertilizers.

But
it contains a constant, which is that they are insoluble fertilizers, not
assimilated by plants without a mineralization process, which transforms
components to assimilable. This feature combines two opposite consequences:

-The
advantage of allowing an enrichment of soil in organic matter, so longer run in
humus, important factor in long-term fertility, and maintaining agronomic
characteristics over time.

-The
disadvantage of not being able to control when the mineralization is done. It specially
depends on the temperature and humidity of the soil, and its microbial
activity. It is common to observe nutritional imbalances due to the phase
difference between the needs of the plant and the availability of nutrients
from the soil. Moreover, elements released in abundance during the summer
(soils are warmer and longer active), and not used by plants, can be washed
away by the autumn rains and trained to groundwater.

Cultivation
techniques used in organic farming are designed to maintain biodiversity in the
farm, and cultural balance. By this way, the risk of development of certain
parasites whose cycles are accelerated by the nutritional imbalances and by the
absence of auxiliary fauna and beneficial insects, is limited.

This
is the case, for example, of aphids, mites or leafhoppers, often controlled by
beneficial insects (ladybugs, spiders, lacewings, hoverflies, phytoseiid mites,
etc..), Lepidoptera and Diptera, staple
diet of many birds or bats, big or small rodents such as voles or rabbits,
controlled by raptors, snakes, foxes and other carnivorous animals.

To
achieve this objective, the farmer will, inter alia:

-Reserve
certain areas of the farm to create areas of biodiversity,

-Develop
a controlled weed when he can,

-Let
some trees or shrubs grow to provide shelter,

-Install
nesting boxes for birds and bats, perches for raptors, etc.

Organic
farming is it effective?

Today,
we can say no, if we compare its productive results with those of conventional
farming. A study by INRA (french agronomical research office) shows that the
reduction of production is variable depending on the crop and agro-climatic
conditions. The reduction is between 0 and 80%, usually at levels of 25-50%.
Without going into detail, it is now clear that organic farming significantly
reduces the productive potential of crops.

Regarding
livestock, these differences are not measurable because animal growth is not
influenced by the origin of food. The breeding method has more influence than
the type of food (animals free or not).

Products
from organic farming, are they better?

No
serious and impartial study could, to date, demonstrate anything, nor on the
effects on health or the effects on taste. The good reputation of a method and
the bad reputation of the other are only urban legends, and are carefully fed
by the personal interests of a few.

One
can only note that the commercial tolerances are very different, and allow
organic farmers to grow the tastiest varieties. Conventional farmers have to
face them to the dictatorship of standardization and retailers, which does not
allow them to do so. It forces them, for economic reasons, to grow varieties
that have a perfect presentation and a conservation increased, often at the
expense of taste.

Is
it easy to switch from conventional farming to organic farming?

In
theory, yes. The farmer will simply adapt cultivation techniques to respect the
specifications. Must still specify that, although there is little practical
difference between conventional farming and organic farming, the farmer will
adopt a monitoring system to intervene (spray) early during the development of
phytosanitary problems, because he only has limited curative efficacy products.

But
in reality, it depends on two main factors.

First
there has administrative criteria. In fact, a farm may receive organic certification,
only after a phase of conversion that will last several years. This time is
variable across countries and crops, but generally ranges from 2 to 5 years.

This
period is intended to allow the farmer to become operational on specifications,
especially to enable the farm to find a natural balance, assumed lost or
disrupted. On the other hand, it must also allow the soil and the environment
to finish degrade the potential residues of pesticides and chemical fertilizers
previously used.

During
this period, the farmer must follow the specifications, but has no economic
benefit because it has no right to use specific brands.

Then,
there is the crop.

Some
crops are easy to drive in organic farming. They are generally hardy crops,
undemanding , and very sensitive to pest problems . It may well include vines,
olives, citrus fruits, some cereals, for example.

But
instead, some crops are very difficult or impossible now, as is the case of peach
or potato, whose some diseases are almost impossible to control without using
chemicals. The effects of the disease reduce production to a level so low that
no trading system allows the farmer to get out.

However,
everything is a matter of time. It is likely that in the near future, which is
impossible today will be resolved by one means or another. This is for example
the case of apple, whose one of the main obstacles to the development of organic
production was a disease, scab. Research undertaken at the genetic level (it is
not GMO, but hybridization), led to the creation of scab-resistant commercial
varieties , opening the view of apple production in organic farming. INRA, in
France, was one of the leading global players in this research.

Organic
farming is currently going through a phase of stagnation, mainly due to dumbing
down selling prices of organic food. The economic crisis has reduced the
consumption of more expensive products, leading to a decline in sales of
products from organic farming. Farmers have seen their incomes sharply fall,
despite all their efforts. Already certified organic farmers generally continue,
not having to go through the convertion phase, but new conversions are
increasingly rare.

I
will not repeat here the advantages and disadvantages of organic farming. I
will devote a specific post, because it seems to me interesting to compare the
different farming systems.

However,
I want to emphasize two points which seem to me fundamental, relative to
current developments in agricultural production.

Firstly
I want to make a criticism, not to organic farming, but to those responsible
for communicating on agricultural products, and on other products to, that
often have nothing to do with agriculture.

We
present organic farming as a perfectly healthy and good world, without any
explanation or real data. There are good things, no doubt, but there are also
many negative points that are almost always ignored.

This
media hype, widely reported in the political world, contributes, on the one
hand to give a false positive idea of ​​organic farming, and secondly (and
consequently) to an extremely negative image, usually unjustified, of conventional
farming.

As
an illustration, here is the image, which I received on Facebook, which aims
informative on codes that appear on the fruit. It is well, it is useful, it is
ignored by almost everyone. But why define conventional agriculture as "contains
pesticides "? This is a blatant aggression ! That may be true, or not.
This is legal, since legal norms exist on the subjetc, and until proven
otherwise, it is safe for health.

This
is an image among many others, because, as I explained recently, the consumer
is a target of communication, and the startle reflex is overused.

The
aim is clearly to sell more organic products. The transmitted image is
necessarily negative, as is the case here, and ultimately, unwittingly
contributing to an overall decline in consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Because,
if a stagnant consumption of organic products is observed, there is also an
overall decrease in consumption, all farming methods combined. This finally
results in an increase of frozen, canned and prepackaged products, as well as
meals.

Ultimately,
this is globally negative and detrimental to the health of the consumer.

Then,
and to end on a positive note, we must recognize a great merit to organic farming
and to its dynamism: it forced the entire agricultural sector and related
industries and government, to think differently.

I
think the biggest change is probably at the level of the chemical industry
(both deliberately by changing standards which it faces), which has radically
changed the way to search for new molecules, priority incorporating side
effects, looking for different manufacturing processes (as is the case of
spinosad, substance allowed in organic farming, which is a fermented product of
two toxins secreted by bacteria living in the soil).

On
the other hand, most of the major international agrochemical companies have
invested heavily in recent years in this direction by creating or acquiring
specialized structures for research in organic farming. This demonstrates their
interest in this market, which obviously has a future.

Thus
farmers see appear each year one or more new substances ever more efficient,
from this research, that can replace the oldest and most dangerous molecules.

Finally,
we must add that this movement has also had an important influence on the
consciousness of many farmers, about repercussions of their productive activity
on the environment, both on the positive aspects, on the negative aspects and
the importance of not doing anything without control. You can have a
productivist objective without destroying all the way.

Organic
farming has a special place in global agriculture. It is fairly trivial in
amount, but is a powerful engine of evolution and development of agricultural
techniques.

Contrary
to what may let you think this post I am not opposed. Indeed, I consider that
the movement generated by the development of organic agriculture and its
greater acceptance in society of rich countries, have led to enormous technical
and technological advances.

But
I am adamantly opposed to the manipulation of public opinion which is made
around it. We are deliberately lying to the public, both on the supposed
benefits of organic agriculture, as on the evils of conventional agriculture.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages, scientifically proven, and none
represents a significant advantage over the other, nor to health, or the
environment, what some people say.

Organic
farming does not need to attack conventional farming to develop. It carries enough
positive aspects to its own development, without having to exaggerate the
negative aspects of its competition.

It
should not take consumers for fools. If they receive an adequate and impartial
information, they can freely chose, and everyone will find his account.

And
finally the administration also has a serious responsibility in a situation
that promotes through a positive a priori on organic food, but without the
necessary checks, and through a negative a priori on conventional foods, but
without proper communication on reality.

It
thus casts doubt on the real health risk of fresh food, extremely detrimental
to all food professions, and to the consumer.